You would never stage a boxing match with only two judges when a split decision is possible—so why did India’s Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) hear a crucial 3G roaming case with just two members?
The dispute centers on whether mobile operators should be allowed to continue using 3G roaming agreements. In TDSAT’s hearing the two remaining members, Chairman Justice S. B. Sinha and Member P. K. Rastogi, reached different conclusions, producing a split decision.
The tribunal sat with only two members because its technical member had retired and no replacement had been appointed. That left the panel unable to produce a unanimous judgment in a case with significant commercial and regulatory implications.
This six-month-long dispute arose after the Department of Telecommunications (DoT) issued a directive in December declaring 3G roaming pacts between operators unlawful. Several carriers, including India’s three largest—Bharti Airtel, Vodafone and Reliance Communications—objected to the ruling, prompting a protracted disagreement between the DoT and the industry that ultimately landed before TDSAT.
The split verdict, reported by DNA India, has left operators uncertain about the way forward while giving the DoT a 90-day window to formulate a response or a new course of action.
Next steps
Legal advisors involved in the case say mobile operators can appeal to the Supreme Court if the government moves to implement measures declaring the roaming pacts illegal. At present, carriers have been permitted to continue their existing roaming arrangements until any fresh government order is issued, so the conflict is not yet resolved and further litigation or regulatory action is likely.
Part of the background to the dispute is India’s $12 billion airwave auction in 2010. Several major operators failed to secure 3G spectrum that covered the entire country, which encouraged them to enter into roaming pacts to provide nationwide 3G coverage. In that auction Vodafone, Bharti Airtel and Reliance Communications each acquired prime spectrum in the most valuable regions—Delhi and Mumbai—creating incentives to cooperate through commercial agreements to extend services beyond their licensed areas.
India’s 3G rollout is still relatively recent. Commercial 3G services began only a year earlier and, at the time of the dispute, there were roughly 15 million 3G subscribers out of a total telecom base of about 900 million. Those 3G subscriber numbers, however, were expected to grow rapidly, increasing the commercial importance of roaming arrangements and regulatory clarity.
Roaming and national policy
Roaming policy has become a major focus across the global telecoms industry, and India is no exception. The government has been working on broader telecom policy reforms that include measures to reduce or eliminate domestic roaming charges and to simplify the logistical challenges of providing service across a country as large and diverse as India.
One element of these reforms is the concept of “one nation, one number,” which would allow subscribers to keep the same phone number when moving between India’s 22 telecom circles. That approach aims to reduce friction for users and encourage wider, more seamless service coverage.
The core regulatory dilemma is balancing competition and consumer convenience. The DoT appears determined to prevent any single operator from leveraging spectrum holdings to dominate national 3G markets, which helps explain the emphasis on auctions and controls on commercial pacts. At the same time, roaming agreements have been a practical response to spectrum limitations and have played a role in expanding 3G availability.
Whether roaming is necessary in a country the size of India, and whether the ruling will cause customer confusion, remain open questions. The tribunal’s split decision and the temporary continuation of roaming services mean that regulatory, commercial and legal developments will likely continue to evolve over the coming months. Stakeholders—operators, regulators and consumers—will be watching closely for any new rules or court decisions that clarify how nationwide 3G coverage will be delivered and paid for.